camerapediafandomcom-20200215-history
Talk:Baby Pearl
Adrien I have in hand a Baby Pearl, semi-chrome model, with Rokuoh-Sha shutter, Rokuoh-Sha Optor 4.5 (serial 26445), and Rokuoh-Sha MADE IN JAPAN on the back...will shoot pics soon... seems this is a post war assembled model from spare parts? What does not make sense in that interpretation is that other cameras such as the Konica (i) made in 1948 etc are all "Made in Occupied Japan" (unless MiOJ came later). You may want to work on this and expound on this, maybe in a footnote... leather case just says "Baby Pearl" Dirk :You are right, the explanation currently presented in the article somehow does not make sense. When I wrote this, I thought the MADE IN JAPAN marking was unlikely in wartime Japan, but this is a fragile assumption. Were this marking introduced after 1945, it would not appear on leatherette pieces stamped ROKUOH–SHA, because that name was abandoned at the time. I will fix the corresponding sentences. :One thing we can reasonably assume is that Konishiroku markings appeared in 1943. Therefore cameras with Konishiroku markings were assembled after that date. Not many (or maybe none at all) were completed in the 1943–1945 period, and most were finished after the war. This includes many cameras with mixed markings, having "Konishiroku" on the lens rim and "Rokuoh-sha Made in Japan" on the back (and either "Rokuoh-sha" or "Konishiroku" on the shutter face). I think that the company had stocks of camera bodies, complete with leatherette covering, lacking the lens only or the lens and shutter unit. These were completed and sold in the troubled 1945–1947 period. The fully coherent combination of "Konishiroku" on the lens and shutter, and "Konishiroku Made in Occupied Japan" on the back, only appears on very late cameras, perhaps made in 1948–1949. (The situation is different for the Konica I, which was a new product and was produced with proper markings from the start.) :Yet more troubling, various sources say that the Baby Pearl was also available after the war with Optor lens, but I have not yet seen a single Baby Pearl with a "Konishiroku" Optor. (But Optor lenses do exist with Konishiroku marking: I have seen very few Semi Pearl having these.) :--rebollo_fr 07:35, 16 July 2010 (EDT) :Dirk, :Please have a look at this picture (published here). :It shows a camera with KONISHIROKU and MADE IN JAPAN markings, embossed in relief on the leather covering of the back door, on what is clearly a postwar camera. MADE IN OCCUPIED JAPAN appeared only later, certainly on the model with body release. :--rebollo_fr 08:26, 16 July 2010 (EDT) ::Adrien, ::Ok, mine looks like the one on the right, but has a Rokuoh-Sha Optor 4.5 (serial 26445) in a Rox shutter marked Rukuoh-Sha. Is there any way to date the unit based on the lens serial number? Also, what is the option that the units marked Rukuoh-Sha MADE IN JAPAN were export units produced in 1939-1941? The lens is marked in metres, though... ::--Dirk 16 July 23:45 GMT+10 :::Japanese cameras were generally not exported to the Western world before 1945, with a few counted exceptions (the Olympic and some advertisements for the Hansa Canon). A number of cameras were sold in Korea, Manchuria and other occupied territories in China. Some were perhaps sold to other countries in Southeast Asia or the Indian continent, but nothing is known on that subject. I think that pre-1945 "Made in Japan" markings would be more a matter of national pride. :::There is another discussion of the dating of MADE IN JAPAN markings in the page on the Semi Pearl (see this section). In the current situation, the two articles are somehow contradicting themselves. I'll have to rework that a bit. :::As for your lens, no.26445 is the highest number I have in my records for an Optor 50mm f/4.5, except for an aberrant 67312, which I think is an engraving mistake. Later Baby Pearl lenses, from 28275 up to 62653, are Hexar Ser.1 and Hexar f/4.5. There are too many unknowns and too little documents to give a precise year. :::The numbers found on Semi Pearl 7.5cm lenses are superficially similar, but I'm not sure if the sequence was the same. On the Semi Pearl, the transition from Rokuoh-sha to Konishiroku was near 30000, and that from Hexar Ser.1 to Hexar was before 38000. By contrast, the same transitions on the Baby Pearl occurred respectively after 36000 and after 50000. If the sequence were common, this would mean that the company was sloppy in readjusting the engraving machines, and produced outdated engravings for a long time. :::--rebollo_fr 12:32, 16 July 2010 (EDT) ::::Adrien ::::thanks for that ...I have photographed the camera. All images can be accessed via this one here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/heritagefutures/4800775176/ ::::The pressure plate has a paper label... http://www.flickr.com/photos/heritagefutures/4800782722 Can you read/translate? If so, please do this as a comment on the image... ::::I have uploaded all to CAMERAPEDIA on Flickr, so feel free to grab any of the images .... at least maybe the close-up of the Optor lens? ::::. ::::You may wish to consider creating a separate page that dicusses the Rokuo-Sha to Konishiroku transition in general and then refer to that page from the Konica, Baby Pearl, and Semi-Pearl pages? That way it any new discussion can be confined there and you don't have to rework the other pages all the time? ::::--Dirk 17 July 12:34 GMT+10 :::Good suggestion, I'll move the discussion of Rokuoh-sha vs Konishiroku to a separate page, or better I'll make it a section of the main Konica page. --rebollo_fr 16:42, 18 July 2010 (EDT)